On 14/03/2013 davidn wrote:>On 14/03/2013 Big G wrote:>>does that mean we can expect to see a drop in c4 prices?>>Hah! Imagine the business case:>"Dear Director - I would like you to invest a lot of money in developing>a new cam, which will compete with the other cams we produce and drive>their prices down">>So I'm guessing no.

Dear store owner

we haven't sold any c4's for ages as everyone is buying x4's instead and we've got heaps of stock left over...

On 14/03/2013 Big G wrote:>Dear store owner>>we haven't sold any c4's for ages as everyone is buying x4's instead and>we've got heaps of stock left over.

You are aware that X4s only go up to 0.75 c4 size right? So at worst they'll only reduce the cost temporarily of the four smaller sizes. And a lot of people think the 0.3 and 0.4 aren't much good anyway. I really like my 0.75 though.

On 14/03/2013 ratherbeclimbinV9 wrote:>On 14/03/2013 Big G wrote:>>does that mean we can expect to see a drop in c4 prices?>>Hah! Imagine the business case:>"Dear Director - I would like you to invest a lot of money in developing>a new cam, which will compete with the other cams we produce and drive>their prices down">>So I'm guessing no.

How much development money does it take to play pick and mix with your cam lobes? Seriously. They have already done all the hard work.

On 14/03/2013 SL212 wrote:>How much development money does it take to play pick and mix with your>cam lobes? Seriously. They have already done all the hard work.

Heh. I'm no engineer - in fact, climbing has turned me off engineers (buncha screaming pedants with number fetishes) - but I'd suggest the mere existence of a certain size of lobe doesn't mean you can just play 'pick and mix'. They might have to like, test the life-saving gear or something ;)

Ignoring that side of things, I still don't think BD is going to actively try to undercut its own prices for one product by introducing another. Partly because I don't think C4 sales are going to drop - C4s are pretty awesome.

Oh I don't doubt they test it throughly, but I think the point is most of the design work is already done. Certainly the metolius offset cams I am familiar with don't appear more complex than a mix of cam lobe sizes and colours.

On 15/03/2013 anthonycuskelly wrote:>Skink, the smaller sizes are relatively bulky compared to something like>Mastercams. I've got double 0.4 and a 0.3, but I'd probably go Mastercams>or Totems in those sizes is I was doing it again.

When you say bulky I assume you are referring to head width specifically. The Totems look bulkier in terms of how much room the take up on your harness.

I am really coming around to these Totem cams though, they look the biz.

On 15/03/2013 anthonycuskelly wrote:>Skink, the smaller sizes are relatively bulky compared to something like>Mastercams. I've got double 0.4 and a 0.3, but I'd probably go Mastercams>or Totems in those sizes is I was doing it again.

I've got a 0.3, a 0.4 C4 and Mastercams 1 and 2 and am thinking of C3 1 and 2. What the problem I find (and anedoctally others) is that 0.3 and 0.4 C4s are too wide for their range. There are plenty of small pods I can get my mastercams in (c3s would also work) that I can't get my C4s into. For long, thin cracks 0.3 and 0.4s are good.

The #2 c3 covers the same range as the .3c4, is rated 2kN higher and has a far narrower head. There's very few placements the .3 suits better than the #2c3. I only bother carrying the .3 when I think I might need doubles in that kind of size

The .4 on the other hand I think is fine and haven't noticed that the width of the head is that much of an issue but I've got nothing else around that size.